Good stuff here chooch. Locked in @206. I'm liking what I see when I ran the numbers and trends for this game.
NBA SAT 032809 early thoughts - value hunting (NO PICKS INSIDE)
- Thread starter axp59
- Start date
Good stuff here chooch. Locked in @206. I'm liking what I see when I ran the numbers and trends for this game.
catch you guys in a bit for last minute thoughts on tonight's games. Dying to see how this 2pm pans out on both side and total
- Mar 21, 2009
- 105
- 0
- 0
I don't know why would anyone consider under in a Pacers - Bulls game...if you like under, pass. One team is home strong, hot, likes to sink a lot of jumpers and is playing against weak-away team with no D. The other team has offensive matchup advantages and likes the pace (pun intended). They've been kinda cold yes, but the way Bulls are playing now (especially with Salmons in), they alone should be responsible for 120ish pts tonight. Pacers can take of the rest.
Nuggets u228.5
Might be worth a look as GSW is playing short and has one proper 5. With Crawford in, I'm thinking he wants to "sell" himself to some new club: with six games off, sounds like 8/23 shooting.
Nuggies up by 20 at start, then cruise controll is on...final score Nuggets 122, GSW 98
Problem is the Nuggets scrubs and how much time they get
Edit: I mean of course that Bulls game is "unsafe" under as one can't really rely on defense and some 2min 20pts run isn't out of question
Nuggets u228.5
Might be worth a look as GSW is playing short and has one proper 5. With Crawford in, I'm thinking he wants to "sell" himself to some new club: with six games off, sounds like 8/23 shooting.
Nuggies up by 20 at start, then cruise controll is on...final score Nuggets 122, GSW 98
Problem is the Nuggets scrubs and how much time they get
Edit: I mean of course that Bulls game is "unsafe" under as one can't really rely on defense and some 2min 20pts run isn't out of question
Last edited:
ax, been fading you out the last couple of days.
in with you on the ny/char under. both teams are b2b and tired legs = less scoring.
in with you on the ny/char under. both teams are b2b and tired legs = less scoring.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 295
- 0
- 0
spelling
spelling
Just a quick .02 worth. I've noticed in the past week, particularly, in L few days, our discusion - leading to a POD has been more 'searching' and almost 'reaching' than they have been in previous 2+ weeks. Y'day a little b4 the games started, I went over to see what Charlie was doin. He wasn's playin any NBA, sayin: " Don't like anything on card". So, obviously both what C did Y'day and my observations here are just that - observations - FWIW. I just think, previouslty, we arrived at a play/lean/POD more crisply and seems we've been waundering more and less decisive. Beyond that, let's make some freakin $$$$$
KB
spelling
Just a quick .02 worth. I've noticed in the past week, particularly, in L few days, our discusion - leading to a POD has been more 'searching' and almost 'reaching' than they have been in previous 2+ weeks. Y'day a little b4 the games started, I went over to see what Charlie was doin. He wasn's playin any NBA, sayin: " Don't like anything on card". So, obviously both what C did Y'day and my observations here are just that - observations - FWIW. I just think, previouslty, we arrived at a play/lean/POD more crisply and seems we've been waundering more and less decisive. Beyond that, let's make some freakin $$$$$
KB
Last edited:
While I do appreciate everyone, including myself posting sides/college etc. I think moving forward we need to just use the thread for discussion of unders only.
Let's start a new thread for sides/college or whatever. It appears our daily mission focus has been thrown off here and I am just as guilty as the rest of us in contributing to this distraction.
So starting tomorrow I pledge to only discuss UNDERS and supporting facts of the unders in discussions.
All ATS Sides or Over's Plays will go into a seperate thread.
We need to get the MOJO back
/rant off :director:
Let's start a new thread for sides/college or whatever. It appears our daily mission focus has been thrown off here and I am just as guilty as the rest of us in contributing to this distraction.
So starting tomorrow I pledge to only discuss UNDERS and supporting facts of the unders in discussions.
All ATS Sides or Over's Plays will go into a seperate thread.
We need to get the MOJO back
/rant off :director:
Thanks for the positive reinforcement, it's ppl like you we try to keep away from. Nobody wants to hear about your winnings by fading others.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 295
- 0
- 0
burnetto57
burnetto57
Yeah, winning - fading us is fine, enjoy the win(s) but unless there's a real exceptional - heads-up' type feedback related to it, which, personally, I can't imagine, wud be better keeping that piece to yourself.
burnetto57
Yeah, winning - fading us is fine, enjoy the win(s) but unless there's a real exceptional - heads-up' type feedback related to it, which, personally, I can't imagine, wud be better keeping that piece to yourself.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 295
- 0
- 0
On a different note, I would be interested to hear if anyone figures out what info came in late - that moved the total for the CHI up so much - it definitely seems valid. And, short of this being explained away by the fact - the biggest sharp/syndicate group got up late from too much partying LN - seems there has to be a player/injury or some other'inside' info that didn't get out to the general publc. Would love to find that 'connection' for future use.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 418
- 1
- 0
I know - I just read about keeping this unders -- but I just saw a nice support peice for Conn/Missouri over that I wanted to share:
(since 1999) "The sweet spot to remember is when the higher-seed is favored by two to three-possessions, -3.5 to -9 points. Not only was this Over wager 3-0 last year, but betting the Over blindly in this spot has an incredible record of 19-2, 90.5%"
(since 1999) "The sweet spot to remember is when the higher-seed is favored by two to three-possessions, -3.5 to -9 points. Not only was this Over wager 3-0 last year, but betting the Over blindly in this spot has an incredible record of 19-2, 90.5%"
- Mar 18, 2009
- 418
- 1
- 0
Looking at the stats -- both teams shooting 50% or better from "3 land" and the floor -- so no defense has been played
- Mar 18, 2009
- 200
- 0
- 0
form what I'm hearing the sharps pounded it hard, with plenty of room to spare after the 5 point jump.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 70
- 0
- 0
Good call for those who stayed away from Indy under with the totals climbing up from 208.5 to 213.5. :scared
It was sooo tempting, almost bought the under, too.
Let's kick some glutes tonight, Ax!!!
as for the other games later....
ny/char = 207, 206
61%
39%
det/wash = 193, 190.5
33%
67%
milw/mia = 197, 198
43%
57%
lac/hou = 190, 193.5
73%
27%
phx/utah = 229.5, 230.5
61%
39%
gs/den = 228, 228
66%
34%
mem/port = 193, 191
42%
58%
:em71:
It was sooo tempting, almost bought the under, too.
Let's kick some glutes tonight, Ax!!!
as for the other games later....
ny/char = 207, 206
61%
39%
det/wash = 193, 190.5
33%
67%
milw/mia = 197, 198
43%
57%
lac/hou = 190, 193.5
73%
27%
phx/utah = 229.5, 230.5
61%
39%
gs/den = 228, 228
66%
34%
mem/port = 193, 191
42%
58%
:em71:
Last edited:
- Mar 18, 2009
- 295
- 0
- 0
Toast - Yeah, I think it's obvious the sharpe hiy it hard - but, not in the normal fashion - meaning early - my guess is they got a hold of some 'late' info that caused them to hit it as hard as they did. Sharps hit games every day - but they don't move the line by 5 pts everyday?? That's why I think there was something particular abt this game and that info wud be useful for other games - if ya know what I mean.
yeah, sorry man, I didnt know till well after the game had started... so useless info there.
